I have never read the full bible, but reading the 4 gospels (Matthew , mark, Luke, John) changed my entire spiritual journey.

Strongly suggest that to anyone who is looking to grow or learn more. Or even just to get started.

I say this as someone who was in church every Sunday as a kid and thought they knew what the bible was all about.

Currently doing a re-read of Matthew as a church read along and really enjoying it.

I made it through the Bible last year in a little over 5 months and will say it has brought me closer to my Christianity. I'm thankful for the Holy Spirit working in me to get through it. I followed a reading plan off of Amazon that was good. I wish I had done it decades ago but I am where I am and thankful for at least getting through it now.

Then, in mid September last year after not reading the Bible after a few months, I started the Bible in a year podcast with Fr Mike Schmitz. This time I'm not racing through the good book and enjoying his post scripture discussion.

T dizl televizl said:

---

I have never read the full bible, but reading the 4 gospels (Matthew , mark, Luke, John) changed my entire spiritual journey.

Strongly suggest that to anyone who is looking to grow or learn more. Or even just to get started.

I say this as someone who was in church every Sunday as a kid and thought they knew what the bible was all about.

Currently doing a re-read of Matthew as a church read along and really enjoying it.

---

You should read Dennis Prager's "The Rational Bible".

The Rational Bible is the fruit of Dennis Prager's forty years of teaching the Biblewhose Hebrew grammar and vocabulary he has masteredto people of every faith and no faith at all. On virtually every page, you will discover how the text relates to the contemporary world in general and to you personally.

It's very thought provoking and really gives great insight into the Old Testament.


https://pragerstore.com/product/the-rational-bible-complete-collection

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Not sure I would ever recommend someone read the "Bible" from a Jewish perspective. No doubt there are Jewish insights that can be helpful at times, but the idea would be counter productive to developing an integrated Biblical theology that brings together both the promises of the Old Testament and fulfillment in the New Testament. Genesis 3:15 would be an example.

---

Dennis Prager has a first rate mind and his insights are applicable to both Jews & Christians of all denominations.

For me it gave me more context to Jesus.

Great if so, but would still caution using the mind of a Jew to bring you closer to Christ. Seems counterintuitive to me.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Great if so, but would still caution using the mind of a Jew to bring you closer to Christ. Seems counterintuitive to me.

---

Sorry didn't have time to elaborate earlier because the wife was waiting on me.

Here is what is written about Genesis on the link describing the series which he is only doing Old Testament books: https://pragerstore.com/product/the-rational-bible-complete-collection

Quote:

---

The Rational Bible: Genesis

Quote:

---

Why do so many people think the Bible, the most influential book in world history, is outdated? Why do our friends and neighbors, and sometimes we ourselves, dismiss the Bible as irrelevant, irrational, immoral, or all of these things? This explanation of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, will demonstrate that the Bible is not only powerfully relevant to today's issues, but completely consistent with rational thought.

---

---

I'm currently reading Genesis and here are the pages around the scripture you pointed out in earlier post:




Correct me if I'm wrong but Jesus was Jewish along with most of his disciples & early followers of The Way which we now call Christians.

In addition, Prager is great at telling the limitations of translation from Hebrew to English and other languages which I think is very relevant to individuals to understanding the Old Testament.

I believe Prager intention is to provide a good foundation of the Old Testament to both Jews & Christians.

I hope that helps.

thanks for sharing, interesting

10andBOUNCE said:

---

thanks for sharing, interesting

---

Your welcome. It's very thought provoking. He wrote Exodus first which is the one I have read.



Above is an example from Exodus that gives you a little bit of him going into the Hebrew.

I should have taken photos of the back of cover because it really sets out what he wants to accomplish

Correct. Good job

Jesus wasn't Jewish, if by Jewish you mean what your rabbi down the street is.

Jesus was a Judaean, and practiced the way of life of the people of Judea, which is where we get Jew and Judaism from.

But the apostles were, effectively, proto-Christians. Not Jews. The religion of the apostles was not like modern Judaism at all.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Great if so, but would still caution using the mind of a Jew to bring you closer to Christ. Seems counterintuitive to me.

---

Yeah, can't trust those Jews to discuss their own scriptures.

---

Not as it relates to Jesus Christ.

---

It might help you better understand your faith and what you're reading to not assume everything through only one lens developed centuries after the documents were written.

Why not both? Jesus is not a New Testament only person.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Why not both? Jesus is not a New Testament only person.

---

He is for anyone but Christians.

There was no monolithic thing as Judaism in the first century. The various Judaisms in that day each had a religion, theology, worship pattern like no existing sect of modern Judaism.

You can talk about degrees of succession. You can't make an identity relationship.

Zobel said:

---

Jesus wasn't Jewish, if by Jewish you mean what your rabbi down the street is.

Jesus was a Judaean, and practiced the way of life of the people of Judea, which is where we get Jew and Judaism from.

But the apostles were, effectively, proto-Christians. Not Jews. The religion of the apostles was not like modern Judaism at all.

---

Yes, I am.

How confident are you that Jesus was basically the same as your local reform or orthodox rabbi?

Zobel said:

---

Yes, I am.

How confident are you that Jesus was basically the same as your local reform or orthodox rabbi?

---

The start of your comments:

Quote:

---

Jesus wasn't Jewish

---

Yes I am 100% sure that Jesus was Jewish from the line of David:

Yes, Jesus was fully Jewishethnically, by descent from the line of Abraham and David, and religiously, through His observance of Jewish law, feasts, and customs from birth.[^1] [^2] [^9] [^10] Catholic teaching affirms that Jesus, as the incarnate Son of God, entered human history within the Jewish people, fulfilling their Scriptures and covenants as the promised Messiah.[^1] [^2] [^10]

### Ethnic and Familial Jewish Descent
Jesus' genealogy traces directly to the Jewish patriarchs:

> Matthew's opening chapters... [provide] a genealogy illustrating the descent of Jesus from Abraham, father of the Jews, and from king David.[^10]

This establishes Jesus as a son of Israel, born to Marya devout Jewish womanand raised by Joseph, her husband from the tribe of Judah.[^1] [^9] His hidden life in Nazareth and public ministry unfolded entirely within Jewish culture and territory.[^5]

### Religious Observance and Jewish Practices
From infancy, Jesus participated in core Jewish rites:

- Circumcision and Presentation: Forty days after birth, Joseph and Mary presented Him in the Jerusalem Temple, fulfilling the Law of Moses (Lk 2:22-39).[^1]
- Annual Pilgrimages: He attended Passover in Jerusalem yearly, even staying in the Temple at age twelve to discuss with teachers.[^1]
- Feasts and Temple Veneration: His ministry aligned with major Jewish pilgrimage feasts like Passover; He cleansed the Temple (Jn 2:13-14) and taught there.[^1] [^2] [^9]

> Jesus venerated the Temple by going up to it for the Jewish feasts of pilgrimage, and with a jealous love he loved this dwelling of God among men.[^2]

The Jewish people and leaders recognized Him as "a rabbi," engaging Him within their interpretive traditions.[^3] Even His Passion involved Jewish authorities: arrested by police from the chief priests, tried before the high priest, and accused as "King of the Jews."[^7] [^11] [^12]

### Theological Fulfillment as Jewish Messiah
Jesus did not merely belong to Judaism; He perfected it. The Temple prefigured His own Body as the definitive dwelling of God.[^2] Thomas Aquinas notes Pilate's question"Are you the king of the Jews?"echoing the Messianic charge central to Jewish expectation.[^11] [^12] As the Evangelist Matthew wrote for Jewish Christians, Jesus' life demonstrated fulfillment of "the Jewish Scriptures."[^10]

The Catechism underscores continuity: Jesus expressed "the deepest respect for the Temple," patterning His life after Jewish worship while inaugurating the new covenant.[^1]

In summary, Jesus was unequivocally Jewish, the eternal Son who assumed Jewish humanity to redeem Israel first and all nations through her. This truth grounds Catholic veneration of the Jewish roots of Christianity, rejecting any supersessionism that diminishes His Jewish identity.[^1] [^2] [^3] [^10]



---

[^1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Catechism of the Catholic Church), 583

[^2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Catechism of the Catholic Church), 593

[^3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Catechism of the Catholic Church), 581

[^4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Catechism of the Catholic Church), 598

[^5] Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Catechism of the Catholic Church), 514

[^6] The Holy Bible, (The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE)), Acts 19

[^7] The Holy Bible, (The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE)), John 18

[^8] The Holy Bible, (The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE)), John 19

[^9] The Holy Bible, (The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE)), John 2

[^10] The Gift of Scripture, (Catholic Bishops' Conferences of England and Wales, and of Scotland), 49

[^11] Commentary on John, (Thomas Aquinas), 18

[^12] Commentary on John, (Thomas Aquinas), 18:34

[^13] Reasons for the Faith (De rationibus fidei), (Thomas Aquinas), Foreword


I never said that thought he was a Orthodox Rabbi he is much more:

Jesus was addressed as Rabbia Hebrew term meaning "my teacher" or "master"by his contemporaries in the Gospels, reflecting their recognition of his profound teaching authority.[^7] [^8] [^9] This title was not a formal rabbinic ordination (as in later Pharisaic tradition) but an honorific used for respected instructors.[^1] [^4] [^10] Catholic tradition, drawing from Scripture and patristic commentary, affirms Jesus as the supreme Teacher (Didskalos in Greek, Rabbi in Hebrew), uniquely sent by God to reveal divine truth inwardly and outwardly.[^1] [^4]

### Biblical Evidence of the Title
The Gospels record several instances where followers, seekers, and even Judas address Jesus as Rabbi:

> "Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are you staying?" (John 1:38)[^8]

> "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God." (John 3:2)[^7]

> "Surely not I, Rabbi?" (Matthew 26:25, spoken by Judas)[^9]

These encounters highlight Jesus' role as a teacher whose miracles and words demonstrated divine origin, prompting such address.[^1] [^10] St. Thomas Aquinas notes that Nicodemus rightly called Jesus Rabbi, as He is truly the Master (John 13:13), though this acknowledgment fell short of recognizing His divinity.[^1] [^10]

### Jesus' Own Teaching on the Title
In Matthew 23, Jesus critiques the scribes and Pharisees for seeking titles like Rabbi while failing to live humbly:

> "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students... Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah." (Matthew 23:8, 10)[^2]

This is not a rejection of the title for Himself but a warning against human pride in religious leadership. Jesus positions Himself as the one true Teacher, contrasting His humility and authority with hypocritical leaders who "love... to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi" (Matthew 23:7).[^2] St. Augustine echoes this, referencing Jesus' rebuke to Nicodemus"Are you a master in Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?" (John 3:10)to emphasize humility in learning from Christ, the sole Master.[^5] [^6]

### Theological Interpretation in Catholic Tradition
Aquinas explains that while human teachers instruct externally, Christ teaches within as the Light that enlightens every person (John 1:9), a unique divine capacity: "some teachers teach only from without, but Christ also instructs within."[^1] [^10] He performed signs not by borrowed power but His own, united with the Father.[^10] This surpasses mere rabbinic teaching, aligning with Jesus' self-understanding as the Torah incarnate and Messiah.[^3]

Early Church Fathers like Augustine apply Matthew 23:8 to underscore that all truth comes from Christ, regardless of the human messenger.[^5] [^6] Thus, Jesus fulfills the role of Rabbi supremely, as prophesied: "he has given you a teacher of justice" (Joel 2:23).[^1]

In summary, Jesus was a Rabbi in the profound sense of being the Teacher par excellence, acknowledged by those who encountered Him, though His authority derived from His divine identity rather than human appointment. Catholic doctrine invites all to learn from Him with humility, as the one Master who leads to the Father.[^2] [^4]



---

[^1] Commentary on John, (Thomas Aquinas), 3

[^2] The Holy Bible, (The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE)), Matthew 23

[^3] On the Christology of Jesus of Nazareth, Volume 1, (Joseph G. Mueller, S.J.), page8

[^4] Commentary on John, (Thomas Aquinas), 1:38

[^5] Letter 166 From Augustine to Jerome, on the origin of the soul, (Augustine of Hippo), Chapter 4. 9

[^6] Letter 131 - From Augustine, (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus (Jerome of Stridon or St. Jerome)), Chapter 4. 9

[^7] The Holy Bible, (The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE)), John 3

[^8] The Holy Bible, (The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE)), John 1

[^9] The Holy Bible, (The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE)), Matthew 26

[^10] Commentary on John, (Thomas Aquinas), 3:2

Brother, there is a second half to that statement which is conditional.

And if I wanted to talk to an LLM I would do that. Cmon man, be better than that.

"Jewish" is not the same as "of the tribe of Judah". It's a derivative term that comes from Judea, which is itself a derivative of the kingdom of Judah. "Judean" is not the same thing as "Jewish". Jesus was absolutely a Judaean. He was also of the tribe of Judah. That doesn't make him "Jewish" in the modern sense of the word.

Your statement:

Jesus wasn't Jewish, if by Jewish you mean what your rabbi down the street is.

Me now:

Jesus is Jewish ,Mary was Jewish by ethnicity & practice. You have the Jewish ethnicity & faith. I made no claim about current Jewish Rabbi's or faith.


3 out of 4 Gospel writers were Jewish both in ethnicity & practice prior to Jesus revelation to them. He was training them in The Way. Jesus is True God & True Man therefore he was fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament but not in the way most Jews of the time believed it would be fulfilled.

You:
But the apostles were, effectively, proto-Christians. Not Jews. The religion of the apostles was not like modern Judaism at all.

I hope that clarifies my point.

I hope you read what I posted earlier because there are some great resources that would have taken me days to pull out of my Catholic Catechism.

Zobel said:

---

There was no monolithic thing as Judaism in the first century. The various Judaisms in that day each had a religion, theology, worship pattern like no existing sect of modern Judaism.

You can talk about degrees of succession. You can't make an identity relationship.

---

The first followers of Jesus had no worship pattern that comports to the modern Mass. But to your claim, I would suggest you read "From the Maccabees to the Mishnah." The nature of dominant Jewish theology and worship changed but far less than you argue over the centuries. Institutions like the synagogue and prayer in lieu of sacrifice were already common across the Jewish world. The oral Torah was a widely held belief.

KentK93 said:

---

Your statement:

Jesus wasn't Jewish, if by Jewish you mean what your rabbi down the street is.

Me now:

Jesus is Jewish ,Mary was Jewish by ethnicity & practice. You have the Jewish ethnicity & faith. I made no claim about current Jewish Rabbi's or faith.


3 out of 4 Gospel writers were Jewish both in ethnicity & practice prior to Jesus revelation to them. He was training them in The Way. Jesus is True God & True Man therefore he was fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament but not in the way most Jews of the time believed it would be fulfilled.

You:
But the apostles were, effectively, proto-Christians. Not Jews. The religion of the apostles was not like modern Judaism at all.

I hope that clarifies my point.

I hope you read what I posted earlier because there are some great resources that would have taken me days to pull out of my Catholic Catechism.

---

The scriptures and the ancients use no concept of ethnicity as you have presented here. There is no such thing as "Judaean by ethnicity" in the first century. What made you a Judaean was eating the Passover, which required being circumcised. Jesus was a Judaean because He kept the Torah, which is the way of life of the Judaean people. Which incidentally is where we get Judaism from, Juadaismos being the way of life (nomos in Greek, Torah in Hebrew) of the Judaean people. So I think the distinction between ethnicity and faith is not only anachronistic, but false. To a first century Judaean, if you did not keep the Torah (ie not follow the faith) you were no longer a Judaean. This is pretty clear in the history around the Hellenizers in the Maccabean era.

So again - Jesus wasn't a Jew, if by "Jew" you mean he was like the rabbi down the street. He had a different way of life and absolutely a different faith. And to be fair very likely a different ethnicity in the modern sense, too.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

There was no monolithic thing as Judaism in the first century. The various Judaisms in that day each had a religion, theology, worship pattern like no existing sect of modern Judaism.

You can talk about degrees of succession. You can't make an identity relationship.

---

The first followers of Jesus had no worship pattern that comports to the modern Mass. But to your claim, I would suggest you read "From the Maccabees to the Mishnah." The nature of dominant Jewish theology and worship changed but far less than you argue over the centuries. Institutions like the synagogue and prayer in lieu of sacrifice were already common across the Jewish world. The oral Torah was a widely held belief.

---

Only if you count one of the Judaisms. The Sadducees and Essenes and Alexandrian Jews are all completely ignored here, which is a kind of survivorship bias.

You still haven't read Neusner's work since the last time we talked about this.

There are clear points of variance - continuities and discontinuities. Nothing you have written here addresses what I wrote.

And your assertion that the earliest Christian's had no liturgy is just vibes with no support whatever. There's a clear continuity of worship between first century synagogue practice plus Eucharistic practice and the modern liturgy.

Quote:

---

The scriptures and the ancients use no concept of ethnicity as you have presented here. There is no such thing as "Judaean by ethnicity" in the first century. What made you a Judaean was eating the Passover, which required being circumcised. Jesus was a Judaean because He kept the Torah, which is the way of life of the Judaean people. Which incidentally is where we get Judaism from, Juadaismos being the way of life (nomos in Greek, Torah in Hebrew) of the Judaean people. So I think the distinction between ethnicity and faith is not only anachronistic, but false. To a first century Judaean, if you did not keep the Torah (ie not follow the faith) you were no longer a Judaean. This is pretty clear in the history around the Hellenizers in the Maccabean era.

So again - Jesus wasn't a Jew, if by "Jew" you mean he was like the rabbi down the street. He had a different way of life and absolutely a different faith. And to be fair very likely a different ethnicity in the modern sense, too.

---

Is Saint Aquinas wrong?
That Jesus was a Jew and lived as one it never occurs to Aquinas to doubt. Jesus "numbers himself among the Jews" by owning a share in the worship of Israel's God (Jn 4:22).116 In fact, the Samaritan woman recognizes him as a Jew by his obedience to the law regarding fringes in Numbers 15:3741, and Aquinas thinks it a serious issue (against Chrysostom) that Jesus, as a Jew, might sin by getting close enough to a Samaritan to ask for water.117 As God incarnate, he is Lord of the law, but Jesus nonetheless accepts circumcision and the other obligations of the law in order to make it clear that he is really a Jew, "a brother of the Jews."118 But what difference, exactly, does being an Israelite make to who Jesus is?
We can get some purchase on the question by recalling the anti-Nestorian character of Thomas's Christology (or its deeply Cyrillian cast, which comes to the same thing). Scripture attributes, without distinction, whatever is rightly said of God to this human being and whatever is rightly said of this human being to God.119 "Without distinction," when Scripture claims, for example, that "The Lord of glory"that is, God the Son"was crucified" (1 Cor 2:8), "crucified" is said of God, and, conversely, "is God" is said of the human being who was crucified.120 "The Lord of glory" and "the human being who was crucified" do not have two referents, but one. So, if this sentence is trueas, given the source, it must bethere can be only one person, [End Page 112] hypostasis, and supposit in Christ, one subject, not two.121 Moreover, this subject is, and can only be, the eternal person of the Word. Thus, God the Son or Word is the human being Jesus, and conversely.122

My source:
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/16/article/609190

You seem to be missing my point. I don't object to Jesus being a Judaean, which is where the word "Jew" comes from. The word in the scripture is Judaean, if translated directly. A person from Judaea.

The issue is not whether or not Jesus was a Torah following person from the tribe of Judah living in Judaea in the first century, ie a Jew. The issue is when someone pointed out Prager is Jewish, you said Jesus was a Jew. If the word Jew describes Jesus, then it doesn't describe Prager; if it describes Prager, it doesn't describe Jesus. Basically if your definition of that word is so broad as to include modern Reform and Orthodox Jews, and ALL of the various sects of second temple Judaism, it's so broad as to be useless.

And it's not St Aquinas, it's St Thomas. Aquino was where he was from.

I'm sorry but the article is based on the Saint Thomas Aquinas

From the article

Quote:

---

My chief interlocutor in this undertaking will be Thomas Aquinas. Thomas is helpful on this score, in part because his rich account of the virtue of religion gives us a lot to go on in thinking theologically about the Judaism and the Jewish identity of Mary and Jesus.

---

The fuller context:

My purpose here is to search out the results of this alternative path of inquiry into the religion of Mary and Jesus. To put the aim in a different way, I will seek a primarily theological, as distinguished from [End Page 62] a primarily historical, understanding of the religionthe Jewishnessof Mary and Jesus. My chief interlocutor in this undertaking will be Thomas Aquinas. Thomas is helpful on this score, in part because his rich account of the virtue of religion gives us a lot to go on in thinking theologically about the Judaism and the Jewish identity of Mary and Jesus. In our context, he is also helpful just because he does not share many of the assumptions we are likely to bring to the task. Whether or not we end up agreeing with him on any particular point, St. Thomas can give us critical leverage on two matters of great importance to contemporary Catholic theology.


From Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica (Third Part)

Quote:

---

Again, it is written (Romans 9:5) that Christ is of the Jews "according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." But He is not of the Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore He who is "above all things, God blessed for ever," is truly born of the Blessed Virgin as of His Mother.

---

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm

So again I will say that Jesus was Jewish. I think you are being pedantic!

Zobel said:

---

Yeah man, I see we aren't getting anywhere. I'm not sure why but you don't actually seem to be responding what I'm writing.

However, I don't think it is pedantic. The basic implication of what you're saying is that "it's ok to read modern jewish commentary on the scriptures because Jesus was a Jew" which basically implies a kind of authority.. the highest kind, really… to a person who denies that Jesus was God. Since, as He says, the scriptures testify to Him, there is a pretty irreconcilable base layer difference between what Prager thinks and, presumably, what Christ thinks.

The -reason- you're making this kind of confused statement is because you don't understand the difference between what modern Judaism is and what the religion and identity of first century Judaeans was. This is basically the same kind of category error as thinking the modern nation state of Israel is the Israel of the scriptures.

---

I would say the biggest problem is you are making assumptions and creating my thoughts & words in your head. Part of that is my problem because I'm not a confident writer and working off my IPad while watching something like this (which I'm currently watching):



Jesus is God & Dennis Prager is just a man. So with that said all I saying is that Prager book has wisdom & thought provoking writings but he doesn't have Divine Wisdom or Knowledge because he isn't Divine.

I hope that helps.

I've listened to Dennis Pragers comments on the Hebrew Bible and I do find it interesting hearing his perspective as a modern Jew. I also like to understand what the Hebrew scriptures meant to the audience it was written to at the time, sometimes it helps me understand confusing passages.

Of course one must be aware that his comments are coming from someone who does not follow Jesus.

Regarding the OP, it's awesome to hear that. I did a Bible in a year plan last year and loved it. Now I'm doing one that does the OT once through and the NT twice through. I've always read the Bible, but not to the volume I've been doing now. It makes a difference, instead of getting heated up on the latest political topic, I am setting my mind on better things.....well...sometimes the passages aren't happy ones, but you get my drift.